Currently, I'd vote for Sanders first and Gabbard second. Gabbard has some anti LGBTQ baggage that I don't like.

Being Californian and witnessing Harris for several yeas, I won't vote for her. She's an opportunist/corporate Dem in progressive clothing, no question about it.

Gabbard has some anti LGBTQ baggage that I don't like?

I'd check the record if I were you. She has repeatedly cleared that up and apologised.

Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton too) was elected multiple times not supporting Gay marriage and outright being against it - they changed their minds on that.

But Gabbard has gone much further than either of those tow did. She means it, they did not.

Yes, she has apologized. Who knows what's in her heart.

Honestly, all the dem candidates have things I don't like, primarily around gun control as a tenet of electability--a very restrictive policy platform that has much better root cause solutions that would actually reduce all violence and that don't erode an enumerated right (rather not get too far into the weeds on this since I know it's a minority opinion on this board and isn't central to any of the discussions here). But those root cause solutions actually require real work to bring up the poor and provide equal access, something Republicans will never acknowledge and Corporate Dems won't address either.

Currently, I'd vote for Sanders first and Gabbard second. Gabbard has some anti LGBTQ baggage that I don't like.

Being Californian and witnessing Harris for several yeas, I won't vote for her. She's an opportunist/corporate Dem in progressive clothing, no question about it.

Gabbard has some anti LGBTQ baggage that I don't like?

I'd check the record if I were you. She has repeatedly cleared that up and apologised.

Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton too) was elected multiple times not supporting Gay marriage and outright being against it - they changed their minds on that.

But Gabbard has gone much further than either of those tow did. She means it, they did not.

Yes, she has apologized. Who knows what's in her heart.

Honestly, all the dem candidates have things I don't like, primarily around gun control as a tenet of electability--a very restrictive policy platform that has much better root cause solutions that would actually reduce all violence and that don't erode an enumerated right (rather not get too far into the weeds on this since I know it's a minority opinion on this board and isn't central to any of the discussions here). But those root cause solutions actually require real work to bring up the poor and provide equal access, something Republicans will never acknowledge and Corporate Dems won't address either.

Yes, the parties have become quite restrictive in what their respective candidates are allowed to support. Very few people align with either party on all issues, why should the candidates?

Very few people align with either party on all issues, why should the candidates?

Most of the Dem candidates are right in line with the DNC platform. Sanders, less so. I suppose at this point in time, I expect some outside of the box thinking by those running and create some policy that will advance goals of: environmental quality, affordable health care and education, a functioning mental health and social support system and protection of rights. Instead, we get the same policy of incrementalism on those issues topped with a whopping serving of gun control as the most pressing thing in the US. It just isn't. The Green New Deal is about the best breath of fresh air I've seen in my lifetime and the establishment Dems are doing their best to erode it.

I honestly don't know. I look at each name and think either "not him/her" and "who"s that?"

To those backing Bernie: I kind of like him, but do you not see his age as an obstacle? The oldest ever elected president was Reagan, who was 73 at the time of his second election. Bernie will be 78 in September.

It's not that I think there should be a specific cut off, but being of an age at which more than half of American men would already be dead would seem distinctly disadvantageous, both for campaigning (the Republicans came up with a lot of bs about Hillary's health, and she was a lot younger) and for doing the job itself.

Sanders and Biden are just a tad too old to inspire the confidence of swing voters etc. Sanders even looked a bit too old at the time of the *last* primaries, and he's not getting any younger.

In most societies, it is assumed an older person is wiser and more experienced. I can't see how this shouldn't also be a consideration for the most important job in the world.

It's also noted in most workplaces that performqnce drops with age. Athletes in most disciplines peak by 30, surgeons about age 40, and most people retire around age 60 or 65. Many who try to stay on later still end up being unproductive and often a bit of a problem for their colleagues. Past 80, he's going to be accruing health problems pretty quickly however perky he looks at 77, as entropy inevitably takes its toll.

Quote

Quote

would seem distinctly disadvantageous, both for campaigning

There is a huge grassroots army out there helping. I do not worry about that at all.

More than 1 million volunteers, the many small donations, word to mouth this is gonna be big!

Also, damn, he is a really good campaigner. Did he campaign his ass off for Hillary, or not?

Was. Was a good campaigner. And Hillary still didn't win, of course.

He's going to be slower now than he was then, physically and mentally. When Dems have won in the last few decades, it's been with candidates who were young, charismatic and energetic (Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton). They need someone who can do now what they did then, and no 78 year old on earth would fit that bill.

So I suggest you throw your support 100% behind the candidate who I don’t think can get the nomination. Jay Inslee.

What??? Why would I suggest you not only support, but vigourously support the guy I think won’t even get the nomination? Let me tell you.

…

If you love Bernie, keep Jay in the race so when the bitch-slaps come, the only ones left standing are Jay and Bernie. If you love Elizabeth, give her the bitch-slap she desperately needs, not just to get the nomination and the presidency, but to do right by us when she does.

Whoever gets the democratic nomination, needs to hear Jay Inslee’s voice loud and clear, right on their heels.

So Tamino still believes the illusion that whoever wins the Democrat primary and the US Presidency will actually make a difference to the global climate crisis and the GHG emissions of the USA into the future. Gosh they might even be able to roll out a Green New Deal ... wow.

Pete Buttigieg Mayor, has jumped 2% to 5% in about 2 weeks. Biden and Sanders both dropped ~3% in recent weeks.

Second Choices: Where Voters Could Migrate

This to me is the most curious aspect of voter polling at this time -- about 30% of current Biden and Warren supporters would switch to Bernie if those two dropped out.

If Bernie Sanders dropped out 33% would go to Biden, and 17% to Warren.

If when Harris dropped out 20% would go to Biden, and 14% each to Sanders and O'Rourke.

If when O'Rouke drops out, 25% would jump to Biden and 21% to Sanders.

What this tells me atm is that there is a strong identification of most voters towards both Sanders and Biden no matter which one they primarily support. This leaning is much stronger than all the others in the race whose polling seems more "scattered" but still leans heavily to BOTH Biden and Sanders.

Reading the tea leaves here but considering history patterns and recent polling, to me it shows that if Biden was to run and drop out, and if Sanders is doing ok then a very high majority of DEMS (25-35% or even more) will switch automatically enmass to Sanders, and not the others. And the reverse is also true but it's not quite as strong a leaning. I think that is really interesting and worth following where it is at in early 2020 and if Biden does run, what happens then.

Now I am going to update the candidate poll list as at 9th April.

Feel free to change your choice anytime.

Now with 21 Candidate options, plus "someone/anyone" else or don't give a dam

I really expect a two-horse race. The big question is how long the other candidates remain in the race, and how many delegates they retain. I suspect most will drop out and throw their support to one or the other. The party bosses wants to avoid a brokered convention, and may just push Biden over the top.

In April 2015, Sen. Rubio (FL) held a narrow lead over Gov. Jeb Bush (FL) and Gov. Scott Walker (WI) for the Republican nomination. Walker dropped out before the primaries, Bush did nothing but had the money to hang around for a while, and Rubio waited until losing in Florida before dropping out.

So polls 8 to 9 months before the primaries begin aren't the best indicator of who's going to be the nominee. It will be interesting to see how the candidates hold up as the debates begin and name recognition fades as the main factor separating candidates.

1.While Sanders is one of perhaps a dozen candidates with a plausible shot at the nomination, the field is fairly wide open, and it’s too early to say how formidable he is.2.It’s also too early to conclude very much about Sanders’s “electability” against Trump, especially in comparison to other Democrats.3.Finally, even if they wanted to stop Sanders, it’s too early for the party establishment to know how to go about doing that — without more input from rank-and-file voters, any move meant to hinder Sanders could backfire.

Each one of these claims could be the subject of a long post — so I just want to focus on the first one for today and leave the others for later.

To be clear, I think Sanders can win the Democratic nomination. He’s probably the 3rd- or 4th- most likely nominee, in my estimation — slightly behind Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and roughly tied with Pete Buttigieg, but ahead of everyone else. All of these candidates (and others such as Elizabeth Warren and Beto O’Rourke) have their own assets and liabilities, so I wouldn’t go to the mat if you put them in a different order.

But sometimes, I get the sense from Sanders backers — or from other election analysts who look at the polls a little differently than I do, or from traditional reporters — that they think Sanders’s strength in the polls is being ignored. Empirically, however, Sanders’s position in the polls is not all that strong; it’s consistent with sometimes winning the nomination but usually not.

Quote

Across the board, those numbers are well down from 2016 — when Sanders got 43 percent of the vote nationally, along with 50 percent in Iowa and 60 percent in New Hampshire.

You could take a glass-half-full view of this for Sanders, however. Sure, he isn’t getting as many votes as last time around, but you wouldn’t expect him to in a field that already includes 17 major candidates, rather than just Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And 20 percent or 30 percent of the vote could still be good enough for first place in the early states.

Historically, though, candidates who are polling at only about 20 percent nationally despite the near-universal name recognition that Sanders enjoys don’t have a great track record.

The story goes on to list 15 candidates who had similar polling leading up to the primaries, and only three of them won the nomination, Obama, Romney and McCain. Then it describes other factors that lead up to winning delegates for the nominating convention.

Quote

You could also argue that the three winning candidates from the list — Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 — aren’t good comparisons for Sanders, especially from a “The Party Decides” standpoint where preferences among party insiders and activists are leading indicators of voter preferences. Romney, for instance, had the backing of the GOP party establishment as a potential consensus choice, whereas Sanders largely lacks it from Democrats. Obama was a rising star, rather than someone left over from a previous cycle, and gained a lot of momentum among party elites as the 2008 cycle wore on, even if they also liked Clinton. McCain, who ran against the party establishment in 2000 but was someone the party could live with in 2008, is in some ways the most favorable comparison for Sanders.

Among all 20 candidates, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Julián Castro earned the highest scores for their debate performances relative to their favorability rating before they took the stage, according to the voters in our poll. Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker also rated well, but their scores were more in line with their pre-debate favorability.

Several new polls have been released this week. Biden is still clearly in first place but lost some ground. The difference between 2nd and 4th place is quite small: Sanders, Harris and Warren are nearly tied in the polling average.